get_public_holidaysRetrieve official Türkiye public holidays for a specified year, including Ramazan/Kurban Bayramı dates and half-day eves, with offline support.
Official public holidays for a year (2024-2035), including Ramazan/Kurban Bayramı dates from Diyanet's official tables and half-day eves (arife). Works offline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Default: current year |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: data provenance (Diyanet's official tables), that eves are half-days, the 2024-2035 coverage window, and offline operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and followed by the differentiating details. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, provenance, special cases and the validity window. Only the shape of the returned entries (fields, half-day flag representation) is left implicit, which is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter already documents its default. The description goes beyond the schema by giving the supported year range (2024-2035), which the schema does not state and which an agent needs to avoid requesting uncovered years.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Official public holidays for a year'), names the jurisdiction (Türkiye via the title) and the exact content returned (Ramazan/Kurban Bayramı dates, arife half-days). Clearly distinct from sibling date tools like check_date or add_business_days.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The domain (Turkish public holidays) and valid year span are implied, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over check_date or count_business_days, nor what happens for out-of-range years. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.